mi^ 



I 1800 



■^r. 



Qass u 

Book4lS_fe£^ 



I 



SPEECH 



OF 



^' /'■■ / 



MR. POTTER, OF" RHODE ISLAND, ry'. 



ON 



rUE MEMORIAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE 
I^E^GISLATURE OF RHODE ISLAND. 



DELIVER©!) 



m THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



MARCH 7, 9, AND IS, 1844. 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE. 

1844. 



'.I- 



A- 



SPEECH 



FEBRUARY 19, 1844. 

Mr. BcRSE presented the memorial of the demo- 
cratic members of the legislature of Rhode Island, 
requeeting the House to inquire into the conduct of 
the President of the United States in relation to the 
the late troubles in Rhode Island, into any viola- 
lions of the post ofRce, and forcible entering of no«»ses: 
also into the right of the members from said State 
to their seats; and further requesting Congress to 
execute to that State the guaranty of a republican 
form of government contained in the United States 
constitution in favor of the people's constitution — so 
called. Referred to Messrs. Burke of New Hamp- 
shire; Rathbun of New York; Causik of Mary- 
land; McClernmnd of Illinois; and Preston of 
Maryland. 

MARCH 7, 1844. 

Mr. Burke, from the select committee, moved 
that the committee have power to send for personi? 
and papers; and Mr. Causik moved that the select 
committee be discharged from the further considera- 
>ion of tlie memorial. 

MARCH 9 AND 12. 

Mr. POTTER addressed the House on the fore- 
going motions: 

Mr. Speaker: I wish to present to the House a 
few reasons why these motions should not be en- 
tertained, and why the subject should not be any 
farther acted on. 

It appears to me that there is enough in the me- 
morial Itself, and apparent upon the face of it, to 
satisfy the House as to its character. The men who 
have signed it are members of the present legislature 
of Pkhode Island. They have professed their submis- 
sion to the present lawful government of the State; 
they, within a year, have publicly taken upon them- 
selves a solemn oath to support it. And now these 
same men petition Congress to overturn this very 
government which they have sworn to support. 
This alone is reason enough why any memorial 
coming from them should receive no attention from 
this House. 

But, sir, supposing all the facta they state to be 
Srue, what power hae this House over the matter? 



Thia House has power to judge of the elections » 
its members, but is there any pretence that we are 
illegally elected, that the meetings were not legally 
held, or that we did not receive a large majority o 
the legal votes? Not the least. The memorial does 
not pretend to say any such thing. As to impeaching 
the JPresident, if that is their object, let them say so. 
I should like to see it tried. The only real grou.id 
then for interfering must be under that clause of the 
United States constitution which guaranties to 
every State a republican form of government. But 
does any one dare to assert that our present consti- 
tution in Rhode Island is not republican? It is mat- 
ter of astonishment that the democratic party, who 
profess to be for State rights and for strict construc- 
tion, should undertake to interfere with a sovereign 
State and dictate to her what constitution she should 
adopt. Why, air, a few days ago we heard a gen- 
tleman say he could not find in the United States 
constitution any power to repair Pennsylvania ave- 
nue; and a|day or two since, in the Grampus case, I 
understood one gentleman to argue that it was un- 
constitutional to allow the officers and seamen of 
the navy a cent more than their regular pay. Now, 
sir, I want to see who of these strijt constructionists 
can find in the United States constitution any grant 
of power to Congress to dictate to us in this case. 
Rhode Island is a small State, it i.s true; but if it can 
be done in her case, it can be done to New York 
or any of the large States. 

Our present con^stitution was adopted with hardly 
any opposition, although in voting upon it the doora 
were thrown wide open, and the suffrage was almost 
universal. The Dorrites being afraid of defeat, did 
not dare to oppose it; and there being no opposition, 
its friends did not poll so large a vote as they 
would have done. The Dorrites — the sovereigns as we 
call them — have been outvoted and badly beaten 
every time they have tried a contest, and still they 
have the impudence to pretend that they are the 
great majority, the sovereign people of the State. 
And besides this, there is a most important princi- 
ple involved in this case; and of what use is it to 
aend for persons and papers, before you have decided 
thia principle, and that you have a right to interfere 
, In case the facta we estaWished/ 



"Until our new constitution was adopted, we had 
lived for one hundred and eighty years under the 
old charter of Charles 11. This charter was sol- 
emnly accepted by the people, and thus, in the lan- 
guage of our declaration of independence, had "the 
consent of tlie governed" in its foundation. Under 
that old charter we have enjoyed more happiness 
and better government than any othfr State in this 
Union; we "have had very little dass legislation; 
we pay no high salaries; we have had no direct 
taxes for twenty years; the taxes poid by the banks 
support our government; we had good courts, and 
our laws were cheajily and economically adminis- 
tered, so that thi^ poorest could obtain redress for 
injuries. What is the use of making a great flourish 
about rights, and then (as is done in some free-suf- 
frage States) make the courts so expensive, that a 
poor man stands no chance in them? 

We have been reproached a great deal, Mr. Speak- 
er, by the demagogues in some of the free-suffrage 
States, with living under a royal charter,* and being 
governed by a landed aristocracy. Sir, I should 
think it would be best for New Hampshire to purify 
her own constitution before she undertakes to cen- 
sure us. 

By the constitution of New Hampshire, none 
but freeholders can be members of the le^i-slature; 
and to be governor, a man must not only have the 
specified amount of property, but must be of the 
rrotestant religion ! So that Catholics are excluded. 
And the senate districts arc regulated, not by popu- 
lation, but by wealth ! And, stranger still, the fol- 
lowing: * 

"No alteration shall be made in this constitution 
before the same shall be laid before the towns and 
unincorporated place, and approved by two-thirds of 
tlie qualified voters present, and voting on the sub- 
ject!" 

God save New Hampshire ! Freedom and equal- 
ity, and natural rights, and the rights of majorities, 
are not acknowledged in New Hampshire; and yet 
New Hampshire is one of tlie patterns of the new- 
fashioned democracy. 

And in free-suffrage New York, the burdens 
upon the poor, upon those utterly destitute of 
property, in the shape of military duty, and work 
upon the highways, are four or five fold what they 
ever were in this much abused aristocratic Rhode 
Island. Poll taxes of any sort are unknown among 

OS. 

At this very moment, sir, in some of these States 
where they have had free suffrage for years, the 
democratic party are making great exertions to es- 
tablish the pruiciples of having all charters made re- 
■pealable by the legislature, and of making the stock- 
holders of ;\11 corporations liable for their debts. Sir, 
in these salutary reforms, little aristocratic, .ilgerine 
Rhode Island is twenty years aliead of them. We 
have practised upon these doctrines for twenty years 
past. We have introduced, too, into Rhode Island, 
several years ago, the truly democratic principle of 
Toluntary incorporation, by allowing people to in- 
corporate themselves for literary, scientific pur- 
poses, &c., without going to the legislature; and our 
Algerine constitution contains not only a provision 
prohibiting the general assembly uicurring any debt, 

*One of these new fashioned democrats, whose deraocra- 
«y consists in nothing but names and professions, muet 
feci Ttry uneasy if liTing in Kings or Queens county, in 
New York, or in some places with kingly names in some 
of the Southern States. 

Cc&Decticut lived nader a royal ctiartcituatU 1928. 



but prohibits their loaning the credit of the State to 
any person or company, and prohibits their grant- 
ing any charter to any moneyed corporation until a 
new election shall have intervened between its pro- 
]iosa! and its passage; and yet we are aristocrats, 
and they are the'true, Simon Pure democrats. 

Under our charter, our freehold system of voting 
was regulated and defined by law. It has been 
charged against us that this power was liable to 
abuse by the legislature; and that they could arbi- 
trarily change it, and have done it. But this is a 
misrepresentation. Since its first adojition in 1723, 
it has always been considered and treated as a fun- 
damental law; and the amount has always been sub- 
stantially the same, although nominally varied 
several times, on account of the changes in the value 
of the old paper currency; and yet the Dorr-democratic 
paper, (the Herald,) in an editorial article in Sejj- 
tember, 1842, asserted that before 1762 the quahfica- 
tion for a voter was $1,334; and this is only one of 
several instances. If this is not a wilful misrepre- 
sentation, it shows a recklessness of truth equally 
censurable. 

Our opponents represent that, under our old char- 
ter the voting was so restricted that only about two- 
third our citizens had the right of suffrage. But 
this is not a fair representation. The whole number 
of votes at the Hsirrison election in 1840 was 8,622. 
But this was not a full vote, as the democratic parly 
knew beforehand that they should be defeatedf, 
and so did not make any very violent exertion. 
Now, in some of the towns, although we had no 
legal registry, we knew exactly the number of votes; 
and by ascertaining the number of absentees in those 
towns, and applying the same proportion to the whole 
State, we should make the whole number of voters 
between eleven and twelve thou.sand, which is a fair 
estimate. Now, the whole number of free white 
persons in the State, over twenty-one, is calculated 
from the census to be 25,674, and the Dorrites them- 
selves have usually deducted 3,000 from this for 
unnaturalized foreigners, paupers, &c. This would 
make our per centage of voters, upon the free pop- 
ulation under our old system, about as large as it ie 
in Virginia, Louisiana, and Arkansas.* And be- 
sides, it was by no means an exclusive system, 
and did not establish a class or an aristocracy, for 
the amount was fixed so low, that any young 
man who had the least industry and economy could 
easily obtain it. And notwithstanding all that is 
said about our suffrage laws, never was there any 
State in the Union where the government was more 
completely controlled by public opinion; and tliis,ii» 
consequence of our frequent elections (every six 
months) and the frequent sessions of our legislature. 

I most freely admit, Mr. Speaker, that it would 
have been prudent and politic for us to have ex- 
tended suffrage long ago; and this not because I be- 
lieve it a natural right, nor that I think we should 
have been any better or more economically governed.; 
but simply because the other States all around U3 
have done it, and because it is in accordance with 
the prevailing public opinion. As I have heard the 
observation frequently made by one of our most 
distinguished citizens,! we have got to sink or swim 
together with o ur sister States, and if free suffrage 

•See the interesting tables contained in the number for 
May 4, 1842, of the United States Commercial and Statis- 
tical Register, a very valuable magazine, published by 
Samuel Hazard, esq., at Philadelphia. 

In Virginia, which is of course democratic. If a man owns 
freeholds in seyeral districts, he can TOt« in them all. 

tHon. John WbJpple. 



ruins them, we cannot expect to be saved from the 
general wreck. Besides, I believe that if there is 
not always as much intelligence and information, 
there is at least apt to be as much honesty and vir- 
tue among the middling class and the poor, as 
among the"we!ilthier and more favored classes.* 

A few words now, Mr. Speaker, upon the situa- 
tion of political parties in Rhode Island at the time 
of this movement, because this i.s necessary to en- 
able us to understand the complete fusion of parties 
which took place amongst us. Our parties have al- 
ways gone by the same names, as they have in 
other States — whig and democratic; but the dividing 
lines — the test questions — have hardly ever been the 
same. Our parlies have always been more or less 
influenced by causes local, and peculiar to our own 
State. "We have never been divided on the tariff or 
distribution. Resolutions in favor of the tariff and 
distribution, were a great number of times passed 
liy the legislature, almost unanimously, and several 
tiines when the democrats had the majority. The ques- 
tion of rechartering the old United "States Bank was 
the only one which could be said to have been a test 
question with us, for many democrats were in favor 
of some sort of a bank, with great limitations and 
restrictions, :r.i': subject to taxation equiilly with the 
State bank,. Ai'd' as to extension of suffragf*, the 
democratic puny, whose principal strength was in 
the country part of the State, were most bitterly op- 
posed to it. Of the two parties, the whigs gave it 
the most couaienance. The democratic party had 
the majority in the legislature for many years, but 
never made the least movement to extend suffrage. 
On the contrary, when the election law was revised 
in 1836, and the democratic jiarty had a majority in 
the House of Representatives, they voted down 
everything of the .sort. 

For several yeiu-s there had been a small mniiber 
of persons, principally in the city of Providence, 
who sought io nbtaiu some extension, and in March, 
J840, they fnniK d the suffra!;e association. 

Things wore in this situation when the great 
Harrison hard cider campaign of 1840 came on, 
and the democrats were beaten. 

The democrf.tic leaders and office-seekers being 
now out of power, both in the State and natioiud 
governments, took up the subject of free suffrage for 
a political hobby. Many of the whigs joined them, 
especially those who, upon tlie coming into power 
of the new party, could not obtain the offices* they 
wanted. One of the principal leaders in the enter- 
[>rise was one of the Harrison whig electors.! 
Thinking that the wliigs had been materially aided 
in the late campaign by the machinery of flags, mu- 
sic, &c.,whicli they adopted, the new party resolved 
to adopt the .same plan, and forthwith they procured 
some flags, (probably some of the cast-off whig 
flags,) published a song-book, roasted an ox,&c. 
They took the name of democrats, not because they 
were old deniocrals, but because the democrats had 
lately gained victories in several of the States; and, 
a.s President Tyler was thought to lean towards that 



party, the leaders thought tliey should stand a better 
chance of getting into office. 

The first measures the party adopted were very 
wisely planned. Their two first mass meetings were 
held on public days, (election day and 4th of July,) 
when there were great numbers assembled for the 
festivities usual on those days. 

From these beginnings they went on. A num- 
ber of individuals, with no other authority than 
that of this mass meeting, undertook to call a con- 
vention, and to fix the number of delegates to which 
each town sliould be entitled. And by concerted 
management, their friends met together in the towns 
and elected the delegates, the rest of the people ta- 
ki-ng no part m it. And these men met in, caucus — 
for it had no title to be called a convention; it was 
a mere political caucus, and a great deal of mischief 
has arisen from giving to political and other unau- 
thorized iiieetings the imposing name of conven- 
tion — and proposed a consthution, fixed a day for 
votuig on it, and actually assumed to say who 
should vote upon their constitution and who should 
not. This attribute of sovereign power wajs as- 
^>umed by a few men elected by small political cau- 
cuses. After the votuig was over, the convention 
met, counted their votes, or pieces of paper, and 
declared it adopted. 

Witlinil saying any thing now about their right 
to proceed in "this manner, let us inquire a httle into 
the fact which they assert — that they did obtain a 
majority; and we shall find that they practised the 
greatest frauds, in order to make it up. 

Why, sir, Mr. Atwell, who ^\•as one of the lead- 
ing men among them, has declared in the legisla- 
ture,* and often" publicly in other plares, that he 
had never believed that their people's constitutiort. 
(as tliey call it) ever had a majority of the people 
m Us favor. And in the famous opinion of the nme 
lav,-yers, while defending the course they had pur- 
sued, and asserting its legality, they do not dare to 
risk their reputation.^ upon asserting tliat they had 
obtained a majority. The paper is evidently in- 
tended to produce that impression, but does not say 
so in any part of it. 

Now, sir, look at the provision for regulating the 
voting upon the people's constitution, and you will 
see that every part of it (whether designedly or not) 
aflords the greatest facilities for fraud: j| 

'•This constitution shall be submitteato the peo- 
ple, for their adoption or rejection, on Monday, the 
37th day of December next, and on the tv/o suc- 
ceeding days; and all persons voting are requested 
io deposite" in the ballot-boxes printed or written 
tickets in the following form: I am an American citi- 
zen, of tlie age of tv>-caty-one years, and have my 
l)ennanent residence or home in this State. 1 am 
(or not) qualified to vote under the e\i:;tiiig laws o1 
thisSt:ite. I vote for (o:- ;:gaiiisO t'ue roiisiltutioi 
formed by the convention nf the jh-oii!.,-. .-is-^embled 



'■'The few who are qualified are. as likely to be found 
among those wliom [the advocates for a projierty qualilica- 
(ion] would fvclude from the elective franchise, as amorfj 
thoae to whom they would extend it. The ignorant mulli- 
tude are as likely to be on one side of the line as the other; 
nnd vice is as [irevalent among the rich as among the poor, 
and altojjether more dangerous." — Rev. O. Jl. Brotvnscm. ■ 

tMr. Dorr himself had been a zealous whic;, and repn- 
seuted for scvcrel years the city of Provideuce in the legi^ 
tature. 



of 



*in the House of Rejiresentatlves of P.hode island, Apri 1 
i, nsW, f.ir. Atwell, lelerrinsfto the opinion of the nine law- 
yers which he had :ii2;ned, said that "that paper did not say. 
that the people's constitution was the paramount law of the 
land; neither had he ever said so, or intended to say so. 
He had never spolven or written anything which said, im- 
])lied, or included the assertion, that the people's conttitu- 
tion was the paramount law of the land. 'Xhat opinion 
would depend on the fact, whether a majority of the people 
of this Stale had voted for that constitution. Of this he had 
never been satisfied. Many things had led him to doubt it, 
and especially the vote upon the'last constitution. That re- 
sult had made it a great matter of doubt whether a majority 
of the people of the State were in favor of that conatitution, 
and of course whether it had ever been adoptsd." 



?.t Providence ,and which was proposed to the peo- 
ple by said convention on tlie 18ih daj' of Novem- 
ber, 1841. 

"Every voter is reqested to write his n.ame on the 
face of his ticket; and every person, entitled to vote 
as aforesaid, who, from sickness or other causes, may 
be unable to attend and vote in tlie tov/n or v.'ard 
meetings assembled for voting upon said constitu- 
tion, on the days aforesaid, is requested to write Ins 
name upon a ticket, and to obtain the signature up- 
on the back of the sam,e of a person who has given 
in his vote, as a witness thereto. And the moderator 
or clerk of r.ny town or ward meeting convened for 

he purpose aforesaid shall receive such vote on 
cither of the three days next succeeding the three 
days before named for voting on said constitution." 
Now, sir, every unnaturalized foreigner in the 
State — and there are great numbers of them in the 
cities and about the factories — could conscienciously 
sign this vote, because they all believe they are 
American citizens, whether naturalized or not. The 
Ibrm did not roquire a)iy particular time of resi- 
dence; a person who had been m the State but a day 
might vote. And, to crown the whole, if they did 
not get votes enough on the first three days, tliey 
were to send their friends round to pick up and 
bring in enough more to make uj) the number; and 
this was the course tiiey resorted to. The first 
tliree days they obtained about 9,000, and in the 
last three days about 5,000 more. The convention 
tlien met again, and declared their constitution 
adojjted. 

And now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at a specimen 
of the manner in which this majority was made up. 
Lut us take the town of Newport. 

Some citizens of that town obtained from the sec- 
retary of the people's convention a certified list of 
the Newport votes, and proceeded to examine it; 
and I have the result of that examination liere — it 
was published more than a year ago, and they have 
never dared •to deny it — a paper containing a long 
list of names of unnaturalized foreigners, of soldiers 
on the United kjtates fort, of minors, of persons who 
put in two votes, of persons who wei-e absent at sea, 
and even of persons svho had no existence at all. 
Why, sir, this House will hardly believe that on the 
listof voters in Newport is found the nameof PETER 
SClUIRT.* Such a person never was known there. 
So utterly luckless were they, or so much of a farce 
did they consider the whole business. And this, 
)>erhaps, is coming pretty near the truth, that, ex- 
cepting Mr. Dorr and a few of the leaders, the great 
body of them did consider it as a sort of farce, and 
never had any idea of going to the length they after- 
wards did.* In fact, we know, from their own dec- 

arations, that many of them voted merely as an ex- 
pression of ojiinion in favor of suffrage, and in order 

o influence the legislature; and this is proved by tlie 
fact that, when Mr. Dorr aftewards resorted to mili- 
Ury force, these were tlie very men who volunteered 
to turn out and oppose, force to force, in defence of 
the legal authorities. 

. Now, recollect that all this was in only one town. 
The others we could never obtain. For, although 
the convention of the sovereign people of the whole 
State had ordered their secret<\ry to give copies, yet, 



• This is furthor proved by the fact thfit, although they 
claimed to Ii;iv«' obtained nearly 14,000 votes for the peo- 
ple's constitution, yet. when shortly after, they p'Jt up Mr. 
Dorr for ijovernor, under it, they could only get about 6, -100 
votes, although they let every b<>dy rota, aiid used great ex- 
ertions to get thi-m Id. 



as soon as ihey found that an investigation was se- 
riously going on, the sovereigns in Providence got 
together and countermanded the order. 

They pretend that they liave always courted in- 
vestigation. They pretend that they invited the 
legislature to investigate their votes. Tliis is not 
true; although I have once before mistakenly stated 
so myself.* A member of the legislature did indeed 
move to appoint a committee to investigate, but they 
very well knew, beforehand, that they would not do 
it, and that they could not do it without giving up 
the principle involved. They pretend they have 
oflered to have them investigated by the supreme 
court. So they did, indeed, and made a great parade 
of it, after they knew that the court had decided that 
all their proceedings were illegal, and that of course 
they would not examine them. But, as soon a.s 
some citizens seriously set about inquiring into 
these frauds, they immediately shut up their records 
and have kept them in secrecy ever since. 

For further evidence of the great frauds perpe- 
trated in this pretended vote, we have only to ex- 
amine the vote given only three months afterwards, 
on the landholders' or legal constitution, in March, 
1842. The people's party made every exertion to 
defeat this; thinking that, if they defeated it, they 
coulc^ with the more ease, carry their own into 
effect. They appealed to all sorts of prejudices, 
and used all sorts of misrepresentations. In the 
north part of the State they represented that the 
legal constitution favored the south; and in the in- 
terior of the State they procured many votes agMnst 
it by representing that it deprived them of their old 
privileges of fishing on the shore. And there were 
a great many friends of the old charter who 
were opposed to all reform, and who voted against 
the legal constitution as a matter of course. But the 
basest thing which they did to obtain votes <igainst 
it, was to circulate a handbill, with a forged opin- 
ion of the Attorney General of the United Slates, 
representing tlie proposed constitution as com- 
ing in conflict with the United States constitution, 
and therefore that it would be of no force, even if 
adojited. Some of the wiser ones succeeded in part- 
ly suppressing this handbill; but I have a copy of it 
here. The contest was a most exciting one — no ex- 
ertion spared; and yet, although the people's party 
had boasted of their 14,000 votes when they had it 
all their own way, yet now, when they came to 
vote in legal meetings, and subject to legal scru- 
tiny, and \vith all the" friends of the old charier to 
aid them, they could only muster 8,689 vole,?; and 
this, too, with an almost unlimited suffrage — only 
two years' residence being required, without any 
property or tax qualification whatever.! 

Sir, the Dorrites have gained a great deal of sym- 
pathy abroad by representing themselves as the ex- 
clusive advocates of the democratic doctrine of ex- 
tended suffrage, and that we were opposing it. It 
must require some impudence to as.sert this. That 
question was given up in the very beginning. Thus 
very landholders' constitution, proposed by thele^d 
convention, and voted on in March, • 1842, required 
no property or tax qualification, nor even military 
service, in order to vole, but only two years' resi- 
dence; and tliese aristocratic A igerines strained every 



*In "Considerations on the Rhode Island question 

jThe votes were — 

For the legal constitution 

Against it - - : • 



- 8,015 



.Majority agcJjoet Jt 



ev 



ncyve to get it adopted. We wished not to restrict 
suffrage, but to have Oie extension made legally. 
Many of Mr. Dorr's party wi.shed to adopt this 
constitution; but Mr. Dorr, who always ruled his 
party with a rod of iron, would not have anything, 
even free siiffrage, unless he could have it his own 
way. 

As the Dorrites succeeded in defeating tliis consti- 
tution by a small majority, the legislature afterwards 
called another convention; and here agam the suf- 
frage, in voting for the delegates, was almost 
as free as air. The Dorrites this time being sure of 
defeat, resolved to take no part in it. The constitu- 
tion proposed by this convention was adopted by the 
people in November, 1842, and is now in force. 

Never, sir, in the whole history of man, was 
there a more strikhig instance of the force of names; 
and that sometimes "names are things." They 
talked about our royal charter; they abused us as a 
landed aristocracy; and they, in their caucuses, as- 
sumed to be the people, and gave their caucus the 
high-sounding name of the people's convention, and 
called their constitution the people's constitution. 
There is a .story told of one of the old puritan colo- 
nies, that when the first settlers could not obtain the 
Indian land by bargaining, they held a solemn meet- 
ing, and passed a set of resolutions quite in the mod- 
ern style. They resolved, first, the earth is* the 
Lord's, and the fullness thereof; second, the Lord 
has given it to the saints; and, lastly, resolved that 
we are the saints. And then they took possession. 
Now, sir, I do not suppose that this ever really hap- 
pened; but it will do very well for illustration. These 
Dorrites met together, and resolved, in all their 
meetings, that the people are sovereign, as if anybo- 
dy had ever denied it. Their next conclusion was, 
that we are the people. And the third step was in- 
tended to have carried their leaders into office, if 
they had not run away. 

And, sir, these "landed aristocrats," upon whom 
so niuch abuse has been showered, are almost all of 
them industriovis, and a great part of them hard-la- 
boring men. We have very few men among us 
whose wealth would support them in idleness. 

But, sir, althoiigh this movement began as a farce, 
and was carried on and perfected in fraud, 
it came veiy near ending in tragedy. The false- 
hoods they circulated produced sympathy abroad. 
•Sir, I do not blame the people abroad, who honest- 
ly believed the story of the.sc oppressions, for sym- 
pathizing with them; but I do censure those at home, 
who originated the falsehoods, and the newspapers 
and politicians who knowingly circulated them 
abroad. This sympathy, reacting upon and strength- 
I . ling the movement at home, produced the rebel- 
lion, which I will not attempt to describe. 

Sir, I have [already mentioned that a great num- 
I'er of those who voted for the people's constitution, 
did it as an expression lo influence the opinion of 
thclegislature, and never dreamed of its becoming 
the law of the land. And the proof it is that those 
men were among the first to volunteer to put down 
this wicked rebellion. 

And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to consider a few 
of the excuses vv^hich the Dorrites have made for 
Uie course they have taken. 

And first comes the pretence that they had peti- 
tioned a great while and that the legislature had neg- 
lected their petitions. 

For several years petition."? iiad been occasionally 
icnt in to the legislature, but signed but by few 
Lidsons. "J'he only petition of tmy consequence 



ever in for an extension was signed by about 680, 
and presented in January, 1841. And who do the 
House think was the leader of thia' A man who 
had been in the Massachusetts State prison eigh- 
teen years!! With such a man for leader, I never 
thought it necessary to inquire who the rest were. 

Sir, our neighboring States of Massachusetts and 
Connecticut have always exhibited a very affection- 
ate regard for our welfare. They always (Massa- 
chusetts especially) used to consider Rhode Island 
heathen and missionary ground; and the Connec- 
ticut folks, whenever they caught any of us over the 
line on a Sunday, u.sed to show their zeal for our 
conversion by making us go to meeting all day. 
But, of late years, both States, not having any reli- 
gion to spare, have begun to meddle in our politics. 
And a great part of our late troubles have beea 
caused by interlopers from those States. One of the 
most active men among the Dorrites, and one of 
their chief lecturers, was a man who had been found 
guitly of forgery in Massachusetts, and only es- 
caped sentence by a flaw in the indictment.* 

And, 'sir, the Providence suffrage association was 
not formed until March, 1840, and they never pre- 
sented any petition to the legislature, from first to 
last !f So much for this pretence. 

I have already alluded to their pretences of having 
invited an investigation by the legislature and the 
court. The truth is, that the leaders, from the be- 
ginning, meant to take the business out of the hands 
of the legislature, for fear that the legislature might 
do something with which the people would be satis- 
fied, and that these leaders would thus bo deprived 
of their expected glory and offices. Their followers 
were not let into the secrets of the leaders, all at 
once, but were led along, step by step, until they 
had got committed too far to retreat. That the leaders, 
instead of wishing the legislature to do anything, 
intended to anticipate them, is proved by the dates 
of their proceedings. 

The legislature had called a convention in Jan- 
uary, 1841i In May, 1841, Mr. Atwell introduced 
a bill§ to correct the inequalities of representation, 
and to extend the right of suffrage in voting for the 
delegates; and on his own motion, the bill was post- 
poned to the June session of the legislature, which 
was to meet Tuesday, Junfc 22d. But the sufirage 
committee were afraid to wait for this;^nd on the 
11th June, they drew up and adopted an address, 
which was published in the New Age, on June 18th, 
four days before the legislature met. In this, they 
distinctly avow their intention to pursue the meas- 
ures they afterwards did, and announce tliat, in due 
time, they shall take measures to call their conven- 
tion. These threats were probably intended to pre- 
vent the legislature from acting at all in the matter. 
And yet they have had the impudence to assert, that 
they did not take these ultra-legal measures until 



'See Pickering's Reports, vol. 5, page 279. 

fSee Frieze's History of the free-suflrage rncvement, 
pages 50 and 5'i. 

{The power of the legislature to call a couvontion to 
amend or alter the Inime of government was never do'iMecf 
ill Khode Island, and has been frequently exercised. VuJt r 
the old charter, the general asseii.bly had all iha powf r 
Tvhich any goTemmeut could have, there being no limita- 
tion but the United .States constitution, the biii of rigfetB, 
and the power of the people through the frequent elections, 
w hich, under the elwrter, were held every six months. 

tSee wport of the committee of tlie legislatcje, Marcll, 
IS42, 



after the June ijession, when all hope of redress was 
gone.* 

All these proceedings, sir, we believe to have 
originated from erroneous notions of liberty, from 
a ^.vrong construction — a misunderstanding of tlie 
principles laid down in the declaration of indepen- 
dence. The declaration of independence was a 
revolutionary document, intended to justify a revo- 
lution. Do they content themselves with asserting 
mere natural rights as their justification.^ Do they 
not, on the contrary, put forth a long list of real 
.grievances, of practical oppressions? Sir, we in 
Rhode Island do not deny the right of revolution; 
but this is aright which belongs to oppressed mi- 
norities as well as majorities, provided their griev- 
ances are suificient to justify them to thei»»own and 
the general conscience for taking sucli a step. 

Sfr, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rath- 
B0n] read 'from the bill of rights of Virginia their | 
declaration, that "a majority of the community" 
have a right to reform the government whenever 
they think proper. But, sir, does this mean a ma- 
jority of a lawle.'-s mob, or the majority of the or- 
ganized community.- Does it mean that a majority 
could do it witliout the forms of law.f For a prac 
tical construction of this bill of rights, and to show 
what Virginia herself meant by it, as most of these 
doctrines have come from that land of abstractions, 
I refer the gentleman to a part of ihe statute of Vir- 
ginia for punishing the crime of treason. 

Laws of Virginia, revision of 1819, chapter 1G2, 
page 56U: 

"Sec. 2. Also, every person or persons who shall 
erect or establish, or cause or procure to be erected 
or established, any govenimeut .separate from, or 
independent of, the government of Virginia, within 
the limits thereof, unless by act of the legislature of 
this Commonwealth for that purpose first obtmned, 
or who shall, in any such usurped government, hold 
or execute any oriice, legislative, executive, judici- 
ary, or ministerial, by whatever name such office 
may be distmguished or called; or who shall swear, 
or otherwise solemnly profess allegiance or fidelity 
to the same; or who shall, under pretext of author- 
ity, derived from, or- protection afforded by, such 
usui-ped government, resist or oppose the due exe- 
cution of the laws of this Commonweal til, shall be 
adjudged a».iilty of high treason, and shall be pro- 
ceeded against and puni.shed in the same manner as 
other traitors may be proceeded against and jiun- 
ished. 



•Dr. Brown, prosiilent of tlu- siifl'rage association, makes 
this assertion in liis statement to the President. Sec also the 
comment of llie free-s-ufi'rage committee on the statement 
submitted to the Iresident by Messrs. Wliipple, Francis, 
and Potter. It is only doing .Mr. Dorr justice to say that he 
never maiie auj siicli" excuse. There was no concealment 
inhim from the tirst; but the same cannot lie said of the 
other leaders. 

tJhave before quoted tlie pro-vifion of the constitution of 
JSew H;\mps!iire: "No alterations sliall be made in this con- 
stitution before the same .^liall be laid befoi-e the to\vns and 
thiincorporated places, and approved by two-thirds ot the 
qualified yoters present and yotiug on tlie subject."' 

Pennsylvania, after eiying the legislature power to pro- 
pose amendments, has the following proviso: "No amend- 
ment or amendments shall be submitted to the people 
oftener than once in five years." 

!n Kentucky, the people have to vote for a convention 
twice l)efore one can be called. 

In Tenne.ssce. the legi^l.ature shall not propose amend- 
.ments oftener than once iu si.t years. 

There are vanOus restraints in some of the other States. 

The new-feshioned democracy of theae States roust be 
asleep. 



"Skc. 3. Every person who shall attempt to es- 
tablish such government, by any other me<>ns than 
with the assent of the legislature of this common- 
wealth, and, in pursuance of such attempts, shall 
join with any other person or persons in any overt 
act for promoting such attempts; or who shall, by 
writing or advised speaking, endeavor to instigate 
the people of this Commonwealth to erect or estab- 
lish such government, without such assent as afore- 
said, shall be adjudged guilty of a high crime and 
misdemeanor; and, "on conviction, shall be subject 
to such pains and penalties, not extending to life or 
member, as the court before whom the convictiou 
shall be, shall adjudge." 
Act of 1785, sec. 2 and 3. 
Treason in Virginia is punislied with death. 
I am glad to be able to quote this, as we are de- 
nounced' in Rhode Island, for having passed what 
was called "the Algerine law," which is not half so 
severe as this law of Virginia, which has now been 
in force there about sixty years. Yet, we are aris- 
tocrats and Algerines, and every thing which comes 
from Virginia is of course democratic. 

Our forefatliers, when they came to establish a 
government, inserted none of these declarations of 
natural rights in the constitution of the United States. 
But we have them, it is true, and in very loose lan- 
guage,* in tlie constitutions of most of the States. 
And how have they got there.' Why, sir, if a mem- 
ber of a convention proposes them, every other mem- 
ber is obliged to acquiesce. If he opposes them, he 
loses his reputation for democracy forever. Mr. 
Dorr projiosed them in our legal convention; but we 
rejected them as out of place in a constitution. 

The peo]>le"s constitution, made principally by 
Mr. Dorr, se:s out willi the most magnificent pro- 
fessions of natural rights, for (as Mr. Burke says) 
when you do not intend to go beyond professions, 
it costs nothing to have them magnificent. But how 
do they carry them out.' Sir, they charged our old 
charter system of representation with being arbilary 
and unequal, and yet— will it be believed — the rep- 
resentation in both branches in Mr. Dorr's constitu- 
tion is entirely arbitrary; founded on no ratio what- 
ever; and regard was had, only to policy and to get 
votes for it. And, sir, they excluded the colored 
people entirely from voting! How they could con- 
sistently do this, after ail their professions about 
iiaturarequalitv, is rather strange'. Mr. Dorr him- 
self, who was an abolitionist, was, in this instance, 
consistent, and wished to carry out his principles, 
and admit them to vole. But he was overruled in 
the convention. 

When we have told theria that, if llieir, principles 
were carried out, the negroes in the southern States 
would have a perfect right to overturn those State 
governments, they answer us triumphantly that the 
negroes there are not recognised by law as persons, 
forgetting that the very first principle they set out 
-ivith, is,"that the people, in the exercise of their 
natural rights, are above all laws whatever. 

As I have said, ^ve do not deny the right of revo- 
lution; but we maintain that a government can only 
be changed in two ways — by a revolution, either 
with or without force, or by the forms of law. That 



•For one instance of the loose and unmeaning way of 
usin" words in our State constitution'?, see that of Tenncfl. 
see. "The NAVIGATION OF THi<: MlSSISSIPn 
declared to be ojie of the 
Teiincisee. 



ithire 
inherent rijhts of the people oC 



r 

■ there was no oppression in Rhode Island to justify a 
I revolution, I have already shown.* 

I We hold, sir, that an adherence to even the forms 
of law ought to be a cardinal principle, especially in 
a republican government; that it is absolutely neces- 
sary to the preservation of our liberties; that liberty, 
regulated by law, is the only liberty worth having; 
that few reforms, at least in this country, are M^orth 
paying the price of revolution for them; that (to use 
the words of President Tyler in his letter to the 
Governor of Rhode Island) "changes achieved by 
regular, and, if necessary, repeated, appeals to the 
constituted authorities, in a country so much under 
tlie influence of public opinion, and by recourse to 
argument and remonstrance, are more likely to in- 
sure lasting blessings, than those accomplished by 
violence antf bloodslied on one day, and liable to 
overthrow by similar agents on another." 

But our opponents in this case, although they at- 
tempted a revolution, and openly set at defiance all 
existing laws, yet they tried to sweeten it to the 
taste of their followers by calling it a peaceable 
and legal proceedmg; and it was by this misnomer — 
by this new doctrine of a peaceable, legal revolution 
— that they were enabled to deceive and delude so 
many. 

We have been accused of denying the republican 
doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. Sir, we 
believe we hold to that doctrine in its only true and 
practiced meaning — not that there is a sovereignty 
residing in every individual; that every man is a sov- 
reign; that the sovereign will is to be gathered from 
the wild and lawless passions of lawless factions, 
however large — but that, subject to the supreme sov- 
ereignty and laws of God, the pohtical sovereignty 
resides in the community as an organized body, in 
the whole people as a State; and that this sovereign- 
ty can only speak and make itself known explicitly 
and autlientically through the constitution and the 
laws. And v.e have inserted in the very front of 
our Algerine constitution, the words of General 
Wasliington: 

'"No where in the woilr! have life, liberty, and propeity, 
been safer than in Rhode Island." — Bancroft's Histoiy, vol. 
*2, J). 64. And yet Mr. Bancroft has since turned sympa- 
thizer, and aided to overthrow this very government he 
had pronounced so excellent. 

If re.stvictions upon nat\iral rights form a justification for 
revolution, then there is not a State in the Union that is not 
sn danger. If the r);i;bt to vote is a natural right, 1 presume 
thu vi^hi io hold office i^ as much so. In fact, this is the 
natural right for wliich most of these patriots^ are most 
anxious. 

In New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, 
Virginia, ?iOitli Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, a 
property q'lalilication i? required for holding certain offices, 
and in most of them for members of the legislature. 

In Mass.'ichusetts, the poll tax which voters must pay is 
sometimes pretty high. In New York, a freehold is re- 
«iiired for colored persons to vote. In Virginia, North 
<'arolina, and some of the other States, freehold, household, 
«r other inialitications, are required; all of which are restric- 
tions on natural rights. 

And further: There is hardly a .?tate in this Union where 
there is not some inequality (and, in some cases. grosH in- 
equalities) in the representation in one or the other branch 
«f the legislature. Look at Vermont and Connecticirt; and, 
an fact, almost every constitution. In New Hampshire, the 
Senate is districted according to ths noinral rights of 
wealth. 



"Art. 1. Sec. 1. In the words of the father of his 
country, we declare that 'the basis of our political 
systems, is« the right of the people to make and alter 
their constitutions of government; but that the con- 
stitution of government, which at any time exists, 
till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the 
whole, is sacredly obligatory upon all.' "' 

Foreigners, sir, and many of our own people, have 
pretended to doubt the capacity of a people to gov- 
ern themselves. And, if the doctrines of Mr. Dorr 
could be carried out, and constitutions could be 
changed every day, and change eternally follow 
change, as one wave follows another, there might, 
indeed, be cause to fear that by-and-by the sober and 
considerate, weary of change and insecurity, would 
be willing even to rush into the arms of despotism 
for peace and safely. But the manner in which the 
people of Rhode Island — the true sovereign people 
of Rhode Island — arose voluntarily, and as one man, 
to defend the insulted laws, and to put down this; 
miserable humbug, affords a proud answer to all the 
doubts and sneers of the enemies of democracy and 
popular government. It is the strongest proof of the 
capacity of a people to govern themselves, and to 
maintain law-regulated liberty against the wiles of 
demagogues as well i\n against tJie encroachments 
of tyranny, that has happened in this country since 
our glorious revolution of 1776. 

I can now only allude to a few of the misrepre- 
sentations which have been circulated by the Dorr- 
ites in support of their cause. They charge us with 
violating the post office; if so, the United States 
courts are open to tliem for redress. During the 
insurrection, the houses of some of the insurgi 
were entered to secure their arms. If any n 
violence was used than the necessity of the ( 
would warrant, the law was open to them foi 
dress. But, having themselves begun threatei 
and military preparations, long before the other ] 
ty did, the less they say about this the better.f 

They have called the law for punishing treai 
an Mgeiine law; they have denominated us 
Algerine party; and tliey have talked a great i 
about Algerine cruelties! What are these Alge 
cruelties.' AVhy, sir, almost all the prosecuti .— 
commenced against any of them, have been dropped 
without any trial as fast as the state of excitement 
produced in the public mind would admit. Mr- 
Dorr himself courted prosecution for the sake of 
political notoriety. And even IJie very*few military 
fines to which some were liable, were all released by 
the legislature at once. So much for Algerine per- 
secutions. But this is a part of their policy. Ever 
since they were defeated, their plan haa been to ridi- 
cule and to misrepresent. 

Sir, we do not wish to avoid an investigation on 
this memorial, for fear of any thing that these 
Dorrites can do at home. Having split among them- 
selves, they are powerless. They cannot even run 
a ticket for State officers. But we do think it ia 
time that a subject which has agitated the conimu-^ 
nity as much as this, should be put at rest, that w» 
may once more have peace within our borders. 



* For some very striking observations upon these mat- 
ters, see the speech of the Hon. John C. Calhoun on ths rfit*. 
power. 

fFrjeze's History, paj'? f?2, 07, 58. 



10 



APPENDIX No. 1. 
Statislics of Population and Elections. 

'Whole population of the State - - 108,837 

Free white males over 21 years 

old - - - 25,674 

Deduct estimated number of, 
unnaturalized foreigners, pau- 
pers, (fcc., - - 3,000 !22,674 

Colored males, over 24 years old 668 

Estimated number of freemen 

under old system - - - H ,500 

Elections. 

1. Vote for electors of President, Nov. 1840. 

For Harrison - - - - r),245 

" Van Buren - - - .3,263 



"Whole number (freemen only voting) - 8,622 
As one side was sure of success, the other made 
very little exertion. 

2. Number of votes claimed for people\s 
constitution, December, 1842 - - 13,944 

Of which, said to be freemen - - 4,960 

See the remarks before made. 

3. Vote for the landholders'", or legal con- 
stitution, March, 1842. 

Fork - - - - - 8,013 

Against (by the people's party and the old 

charter party) ... - 8,689 



Majority against 
Whole number 



676 
- 16,702 

In this vote the suflV.-ige wa.s extended to all na- 
tive citizens, without property or tax qualification; 
and it is somewhat surprising that, notwithstanding 
a great exertion by both parties, the whole number 
of votes on both sides is not much greater than that 
claimed for the people's constitution; and the peo- 
])le's party joining with those who wished to retain 
the old charter, and were against all constitutions, 
could only muster 8,6!?'9 votes. Where were the 
3-est of the 13,944 they claimed? And they claimed 
to have obtained 4,960 freemen or qualified voters. 
But all the old freemen they could get to vote against 
the legal constitution, were 2,684. Where were the 
rest of them.' 

This vote is, in some degree, a test, as the people's 
party supposed, that if they could defeat the legal 
constitution, they should be sure of carrying their 
own into eflect. 

4. Votes for Thomas W. Dorr for Governor, 
under people's constitution, April, 1842. No opposi- 
tion, but consideraljle exertion lo gel a full vote 6,417 

Where were the rest of the 1.3,944? Most of the 
Dorrites had, by this time, got to be so zealous that 
aiothing but death would iiave kept tlfem from the 
■meeting. 
5. Votes to adopt the constitution now in 

force, in November, 1842 - - 7,024 

Thfc Dorr party being sure of defeat, made no oj> 

position, but kept away from tlie polls. 
^. Vote for Governor, April, 1843. 
James Fenner (law and urder) - - 9,107 

.Thomas F. Carpenter (Dorr and democracy) 7,392 



16,499 
Tliis w.-s under the new constitution, with ex- 
tended suffrage. 
1. Vote for members of Congress, August, 

1843. 
IMajo! jty for law and order party a) out - 2,7C0 



I APPENDIX NO. 2. 

Extracts from " Considerations on the Rhode JUand 
question. 

We come now to consider the reasons put fortli 
to justify the recent attempt at revolution; and these 
resolve themselves into questions of principle and 
questions of fact — whether the majority of the peo- 
ple have the right assumed, and whether a majority 
was ever actually obtained. 

The first question is, whether a majority of the 
whole people, without reference to any existing, 
laws regulating the right of voting, have a right to 
change the government at any time, and in any 
manner they choose: for this is the position taken. 

In whatever may be said upon this subject, we 
do not wish to be understood as denying what may 
be called the right of revolution, or the- right of any 
portion of the people who are oppressed to redress 
their gi-ievances by force, after having tried all 
peaceable means without effect. But this is a right 
which belongs not to majorities only, but to any 
number of citizens, however small, who are 0[>- 
pres.sed, where the oppression is sufficient to justify 
it, and there is no mode of redressing it but by a 
revolution. For engaging in such a cause every 
man has to account with his own conscience and his 
God. If the change jiow attempted had been called 
a revolution, it would have been rightly named, and 
then no one would have been deceived by it. But 
the ground taken is, that the majority can legally 
and constitutionally change the government at any I 
time, and in any manner; or, in other words, that 
their supremacy in all things is a fundamental prin- 
ciple of republican law. It has been sometimes call 
ed, straj)gely enough, the dectrine of peaceable rev- 
olution. By believing it to be rightful and legal, 
and that it would be peaceable, hundreds have been 
misled who would never have countenanced it if 
called by its right name. 

It is very plain that, if tliey can disregard the 
laws established by society in one instance, they 
can in any other. If they have a right to depart 
from the law which regulates the qualification of voi- 
ters, they have an equal right to depart from the 
laws which regulate boundary lines. They are all 
alike results of the institution of society; and with- 
out society they would have no existence. The 
boundary line between Connecticut a)id Rhode 
Island is merely an artificial line, established by a 
treaty or law. What, upon the doctrine in ques- 
tion, is to prevent a portion of the people of Coiv' 
necticut from joining with a portion of the people 
of Rhode Island, and forming a new State? If you 
answer that this boundary line was a compact be- 
tween two societies, established by our ancestors, 
and, tiierefore, binding on us, you grant all I ask. 
But what is to prevent the majority of the people of 
Washington county setting up for themselves? 
Why should not the people of Longlsland separate 
from New York? The majority of the people of 
the northern part of Illinois would perhaps like to 
join Wisconsin, and thus get out of debt. What is 
there to prevent continual changes of this sort, up- 
on the doctrine in question? You w ill luiswer, The 
constitution of the United Stiites would prevent the 
erection of new States, or alteration of old ones, 
without consent of Congress. But if the majority 
of the people of Rhode Island have a right to change 
their own government in this manner, tliey have an 
equal right to throw off the government of the 
Union; for they both stand upon the .sjune founda- 



11 



tioe — a compact made by our forefathers. And 
again: upon the new docti-ines, the constitution of 
the United States was never legally adopted, and is 
not binding; for a majority of the whole people nev- 
er assented to it; and in almost all the States, at the 
time of its adoption, there were great restrictions 
upon suffrage. Further: what is to prevent a ma- 
jority of the whole people of the Union, without 
regard to the lines of States, from changing the 
constitution of the Union, and making us one con- 
solidated nation? If the majority, without reference 
to laws, have this right in Rhode Island, the major- 
ity of the United States have it also, and so on; for 
boundary lines are but laws, the artificial institu- 
tions or results of society. These, it may be said, 
are all idle fears; -but they are submitted as the le- 
gitimate consequences "of the rea.soning of the revo- 
lutionists, if carried to their full length in practice. 

The more we consider these things, the more rea- 
son we shall see in the old-fashioned doctrine that 
a chaaige of government can only take place in one 
of two ways — legally, with the consent of the ex- 
isting government; or by a revolution, brought about 
by force, or the fear of force. They may actually 
prevail in (;onflict; or they may exhibit such strength 
as to awe the minority into submis.sion, without 
conflict. In either case, it would be a revolution, 
and not a legal change. The doctrine of peaceable, 
legal revolution, was a discovery reserved for this 
enlightened age and peojjle. 

We are eitjier an organized society, or we are not. 
If we are not, then we shoidd be in a state of na- 
ture, and a majority could have no right to bind us; 
for in that state no one man would have a right to 
govern another. If we are members of an organ- 
ized political society, then we are as much bound by 
one of its laws as another, until they are legally 
changed, or until the oppression is so great that the 
duty of self-preservation compels them to appeal 
from die laws of society to the laws of humanity. 
To hold the contrary, is to give to a majority the 
power to turn might into right, and to confound 
moral distinctions. 

If we are not an organized society, if the State 
does not constitute a quasi corporation, how can we 
bind ourselves by a treaty.' how can we incur a debt 
for posterity to pay? It has, heretofore, been thought 
reasonable, that as a new generation takes posses- 
.«ion of a covmtry, with all the advantanges derived 
from the labors and accumulations of their ancestors, 
they should also iake upon tliemselves their bur- 
deais. But if a bare majority have a right to alter 
the government in any manner they please, and 
without retcrence to the qualifications required by 
tlie laws — if laws or compacts of government made 
by our forefathers are of no binding force — then, for 
die same reason, one generation could never bind 
another in any respect, and treaties would be ties of 
straw, and debts go unpaid; old-fashioned notions 
of honesty would have to be laid aside. The con- 
nection between diese doctrines is nearer than would 
be at first supposed. 

If, then, a majority can ride over or depart from 
the law in one instance, widiout resorting to the i-e- 
quired forms of law for its repeat!, there is die same 
reason for their right to do it in all. They may 
equally disregard boundary lines, laws making com- 
pacts or treaties, and laws for contracting deljts. 
They may do all this by force, I admit, and then 
the justificaUon will depend upon the nature of the 
ciise. What I object to is, its being called legal 
or right, merely because it is the will of Ujc maiorlty. 



Now we either have a society or social compact 
already instituted — we have a lawful government, or 
we have not; and are ^in this (so called) state of na- 
ture without any government. If we are not mem- 
bers of an organized society, then, from what has 
been said before, a majority has no right to govern 
at all — no other right bvit the revolutionary right of 
force. If we are members of an organized society, 
then a majority has no right but such as the exist- 
ing constitution and laws give them. *If, by the 
original, or existing constitution, the whole people 
have agreed that that constitution shall be altered 
by a majority, then a majority may alter it; but is be- 
cause the whole people have given them that power, 
and for that reason alone. If they have not given them 
that power, as in Rhode Island, then the right remains 
in the whole people. Governments were instituted for 
the {protection of the whole people, for majorities 
can generally protect themselves. How the consent 
of the vv'hole people is to be expresed, we shall con- 
sider presently. A change of government made in 
any other manner, may be a i-evolution, but cannot 
be called legal. 

But it will be said, even allowing that a majority 
of all the men over twenty-one years of age, quah- 
ficd and unqualified, had no power to change the 
government in this manner, the people's consUtution 
received the votes of a majority of the freemen or 
qualified voters under the existing laws. The fact 
we will afterwards inquire into, and will now con- 
sider the present form of the assertion, that a maj( 
ity of die qualified voters have a right to change t 
government at any time, and in any manner th 
choose, without consulting either the governme 
or the luinority. 

We are very apt to get our notions of the rigl 
of majorities from our common practice of govei 
lug by majorities. After a government is forim 
and the republican form adopted, as with us, a 
the power is placed in the liands of a body of nn 
instead of one or a few, the univer.sal rule and pr 
tice is, that in the administration of the laws a 
deciding all ordinary cases, the will of the major _, 
shall be considered as the will of the whole body. 
This is the only pracUcable rule in managing the 
affairs of an organized body of a number of men, 
and is adopted either expressly, by iiile, or tacidy, 
l)y consent, from the necessity of the case; but then 
iliis majority must act accordii>g to the rules and 
fundamental laws upon which the government it- 
self was organized. It is from seeing that the ad- 
ministration of the government in our country in all 
its details is carried on by majorities, and this con- 
stantly going on before our eyes, that some come to 
imagine that there is some peculiar power inherent 
in, or natural to a majority, and that, as a republicaii 
principle, diey have a right to change the govern- 
ment itself. 

If any number of lis were to meet to form an as- 
sociation fur any purpose whatever, a majority 
would have no right to control the rest in forming 
the articles of association; but when once the asso- 
ciation was formed, if there were no express ruUi* 
for m;uiaging its business, we should '-naturally," 
tiiat is, from die necessity of the case, adopt the rule 
of uiajoritie.?. We should adopt it a.s a rule of con- 
venience. And this- is die only connexion we 
know of between nature%nd a majority. 

Much of what we hai^e said before will apply to 
t ic right now clcuxned for a majority of Uie quaUtieqi 



12 



voters. A majority, whether of qualified or un- 
qualified voters, can have no legal, constitutional, or 
conventional rights, but such as the constitution or 
social compact gives them; and government being 
formed by the whole people for the protection of 
minorities as well as majorities, when once instituted 
it can only be changed by the whole people, or in 
such manner as they have agreed it shall be changed. 
* ***#»# 

Now it is plain that if the law is out of the case, 
mere numbers cannot add to the right; that is, if 
five or ten men can call a convention, one man has 
as good a right; and if fifty or a hundred men, with- 
out legal authority, can make a constitution, and 
say how it shall be adopted, one man has the same 
right; for there is no law, either of nature or of so- 
ciety, which limits the number necessary to be con- 
cerned in such an midertaking. This, we behcve, 
tlie friends of the people's constitution generally ad- 
mit. They maintain that it is the adoption of the 
constitution by a majority which alone gives it va- 
lidity; and that it is of no consequence how it is pro- 
posed. 

But who is to settle who the. .sovereign people 
are.'' Those who proposed the people's constitution, 
limited the right of voting upon its adoption to 
American citizens (which, of course, requires five 
years' residence in the United States) over twenty- 
one years of age. They did not expressly exclude 
females; but if females are to be counted, there can 
be no pretence that they obtained a majority. Now 
what, upon the theory in question, is there to pre- 
vent any private individual framing a constitution 
and proposing it to the people, and asking females 
to vote upon it? for he would have the same right to 
do it the pco]3le's cojivention had. We have now a 
large party among us contending for women's 
rights. What would prevent this being done every 
day, as new notions arose and became j)opular.' 
Why could not a majority of a religious sect estab- 
lish their creed in a constitution? Religious liberty 
ifi a part of our social compact in Rhode Island, if 
anything is. They may, even now, do this by 
force; but we are speaking- of constitutional right. 

If these positions are followed out in all their con- 
sequences, it would be seen that, upon such grounds, 
there could be no permanence in any torni of gov- 
ernment whatever; and a government without some 
degree of permanence is no government at all. It 
may be said, indeed, that in practice these changes 
would not be frequent — that the people are not apt 
to change, unless there is some great cause to move 
them. But vv-here is the security for this? Our 
country is, from time to time, swept over by excite- 
ments, political and religious; the advocates of 
which, while tlie fever is up, are very apt to think 
that the salvation of the republic depends upon the 
adojition of their particular notions. If a majority 
have not only the might, but can make right, wliat 
hinders these things? 

People will never luidertake a revohition \mless 
there be good cause; but once establish that the ma- 
jority have the legal and peaceable right now 
<;iaimed, and that they can overturn not merely the 
■ordinary laws, but the government and constitution 
itadt', by putting a piece of paper in a ballot-box, or 
aen&iaC i» their vote to any self-constituted meet- 
ing aiijc) there is nothing to prevent changes being 
atteropl'ed ^'^'cry day, and t#e commiuiity would, of 
course be kn'^P' ^" constant agitation by a few heat- 
ed partisans. 



The case of tlie admission of Michigan mto t]--<> 
Unioi;, is often quoted in support of the late move- 
ment in Rhode Island. All the facts connected witli 
it are seldom stated. 

Michigan, being a territorial government, the ter- 
ritorial legislature, January 25, 1835, passed "An 
act to enable the people of Michigan to form a con- , 
stiiution and State government," in pursuance of ; 
which, a constitution was formed by a convention 
of the people at Detroit, in May, 1835. 

By the act of Congress, of .Time 15, 1836, "to es- ;] 
tablish the nothern boundary line of the State of -: 
Ohio, and to provide for the admission of the State 
of Michigan into the Union upon the conditions 
therein expressed," certain conditions, as to boun- 
dary lines, &c., were prescribed to be compiled with, 
or asseiued to, before their admission. The act re- 
quired that these conditions should "i-eceive the as- 
sent of a convention of delegates elected by the 
people of said State for the sole purpose of giving 
the assent herein required," and upon such assent 
being given, the president was to declare it by proc- 
lamation. 

In accordance with this act, the legislature, under 
the State constitution, calleiLa convention, which 
met at Ann Arbor, September, 1836, and rejected 
the conditions. 

In December, 1836, a convention of delegates, 
elected by the people of their own motion, and called 
by no legal authority, met, and voted to accept the 
conditions. The proceedings were coiuniunicated 
to President Jackson, who laid them before ConJ 
gress, and Michigan was admitted. 

Michigan was, at this time, without any govern- 
ment at all, recognised by Congress. Congress 
would not recognise them as a SUite, until they hail 
bee>n admitted, iuid did not recognise their legislature 
as having any authority to call a convention, or 
their constitution as havitig any validity whatever. 
FurthermoBe, the act of Congress required, that the 
assent shoidd be given by a convention of delegates, 
elected by the j>eople, and did not prescribe any par- 
ticular manner in which the convention should be 
called or elected. 

All tliese facts were stated, and the points made, 
in the letter from the president of the convention to 
President Jackson. The aci, he says, ."does not 
designate any power or authority known among the. 
people of the State, whether executive or legislative, 
by which such convention of delegates should be 
called together for acting on the premises. The 
conditioif prescribed as a preliminary to the ad- 
mission of Michigan into the Union, had not, until 
nov,-, been complied with, and no absolute recogni- 
tion of om- State authorities had been made by any 
brtuich of the national government. The territorial 
executive had been withdrawn, the territorial legis- 
lature had ceased, and no power remained as recog- 
nised by Congress, but the people of Michigan in 
their sovereign capactity, by which the convention 
of delegates should be called to yield compliance, 
with the fundamental condition of admission as pro- 
vided in the second section of the act of Congress. 
Had the third section of the said act designated by 
whom or by what power the said convciition should 
be ordf red,' the mode would have met the cheerful 
compliance of the people of Michigan; but an implied 
recognition of our constitutional authorities by Con- 
gress, is not justified in the whole scope of the act 
aforesaid, and might be deemed too broad a con- 
struction, bearing on a question so vitally important, 
to the ;>eoplc; of Michigan. Left, then, to our- 



13 



selves, we have considered it proper, respectfully, 
and as a full compliance with the spirit of the third 
section of the act of Congress of June 15, 1836, to 
originate with and from the people themselves, 
tlirough the expressed sanction of our executive, the 
convention of delegates required by said act." 

At tlie regular election for State officers in No- 
vember, after the first convention, the question of 
assent or dissent to the conditions required by Con- 
gress, was made the test question. Having, in this 
way, fully ascertained the views of the people, the 
<^ling of another convention was recommended by 
primary meetings, elections for delegates were held, 
which were conducted in all respects as the ordinary 
election.?, and the votes were canvassed and counted 
by the county boards, as in other cases, acccording 
to the territorial law. 

The convention themselves, in the act declaring 
their assent, express themselves in the preamble 
thws: "where<ie no autinority or power is designated 



in said act of Congress by which said convention of 
delegates shall be called or convened; but in the 
third section of said act, the right of the people of 
Michigan »o elect said delegates without any pre- 
vious action of their constituted authorities, is clear- 
ly recognised and manifest: and whereas this con- 
vention originated with, and speaks the voice of a 
great majority of the people of Michigan;" &e. 

Upon these grounds, and under these circum- 
stances, Michigan was admitted. Some of the mem- 
bers did, indeed, in their speeches, express very rad- 
ical opinions, and many of them were, doubtless, 
influenced by party motives, as it was during a most 
violent contest for the presidency. And even if it 
had been decided upon the ground of right alone, 
the two cases are not similar, for Rhode Island ha« 
an established government recognised by the United 
States, and Michigan had no government at all re- 
cognised by Congress, and no government wae swb- 
verted in thie ease by the action of the majority. 



LBJe'lO 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 111 353 7 



iitefi 







